Tag Archives: political parties

Banning Workers’ Freedom

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what two Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidates want to do.  Here’s Kamala Harris, who’s doubling as a California Senator:

The barriers to organized labor being able to organize and strike are something that have grown over a period of time[.] … It has to be about, for example, banning right-to-work laws[.]

Here’s Social Democrat Bernie Sanders, doubling as an Independent Senator from Vermont while, once again, masquerading himself as a Progressive-Democratic Party member for this campaign, calling for:

a federal ban on so-called right-to-work laws in a Monday [1 Apr] speech.
Speaking to the International Association of Machinists at the union’s conference in Las Vegas, Sanders said as president he would push legislation in Congress to prohibit the laws.

And

…the trade union movement must be in the middle of all of those discussions.

Aside from blatant attacks on all workers’ 1st Amendment right of freedom of assembly, these are obvious and petty attempts at pandering for the votes of blue collar workers.

The attempts also are dishonest in their cynically deliberate distortions of the situation.  Right to work laws guarantee workers’ right to work without paying dues to unions to which they do not belong and their right to work without being forced against their will to join unions.

Those right-to-work laws do not bar workers from joining unions; on the contrary, they explicitly allow them to—that 1st Amendment bit, again.  Instead, the laws simply enable workers to support their families without having to join a union as a precondition for doing so.

Oh, and it’s all about the Benjamins, too.  Unions fund the political campaigns—and other expenses—of Progressive-Democratic Party politicians.  Those forced dues that freed workers no longer have to pay were a significant fraction of the funds used to pay those politicians; and those politicians are desperate to recover the money.

Why Biden Can’t Apologize to Hill

Posted on by
Reply

In 1998, Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden told then-Senator Arlen Specter (D, PA), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee which Biden chaired during Justice Clarence Thomas’ confirmation hearings, what he, Biden, thought of Anita Hill’s testimony:

It was clear to me from the way she was answering the questions, she was lying.

Then he called Hill and “apologized” for the way she was treated—but carefully not for his part in that supposed mistreatment.

Then, a few days ago, he said this on The View:

Not only didn’t I vote for Clarence Thomas, I believed her [Anita Hill] from the beginning.

Those two statements are too diametrically opposed and too carefully stated for there to be any alternative interpretations—they can’t both be true.  One of them is false, and under the care with which both statements were formed, that one must be a lie.

Hill couldn’t believe Biden’s apology were he to offer one.  And neither could anyone else.

Biden Takes Obama’s Apology Tour Domestic

Posted on by
Reply

Rafael Mangual wrote about Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden’s apology tour in a Wednesday Wall Street Journal op-ed.

Even before announcing that he would seek the Democratic presidential nomination, Joe Biden was busy apologizing. At a Martin Luther King Day speech to Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, Mr Biden said “I haven’t always been right….”

This, in response to criticism of his role in getting the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 enacted and his role in getting the preceding Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 enacted, this one especially with the support of 16 of the then-19 members of the House Black Caucus.

And so on goes Biden.

His steady drumbeat of apology over non-offenses just shows how weak of character Biden is.

Alternatively, if his apology drumbeat is legitimate, it shows how routinely offensive Biden is.

Either way, he’d be a President very dangerous to American values and to American national security.

“A Battle for the Soul of this Nation”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and Hamlet’s poor relation Joe Biden, said we’re in as he opened his campaign.

We are in the battle for the soul of this nation[.] If we give Donald Trump eight years in the White House, he will forever and fundamentally alter….

Indeed, we are in a battle for our nation’s soul. It’s a battle between one party that actively tries to improve the situations of our nation’s citizens—whether we agree with those policies or not—and a party that has no aim for our people’s benefit, but is focused solely on anti-Trumpism.

It’s a battle between a party on the one hand that wants to get Government out of our way, to unleash our individuality and individual entrepreneurial spirit, to restore to us our individual responsibilities and freedoms, and a Party on the other hand that wants to take things away from us: our money in the form of higher taxes; our weapons, under the guise of carefully undefined “common sense”…restrictions; our freedom of speech under the cynically offered guise of suppressing “hate” speech or “terrorism fomenting;” our freedom of religion under the just as cynically offered guise of “protecting” others from discrimination (but not the ones asserting their religious tenets); our morality by growing Government to arrogate that morality to it, thereby destroying it in both places; our individualism by mandating what all of us collectively must do because Party says it benefits some of us—even where it plainly does not—and on and on.

It’s a battle between a party that wants to shrink government and Party, which wants to grow a Government run by Party members who Know Better than the rest of us.

It’s a battle between a party that wants government to work for all of us and Party, which has open contempt for millions of us and insists that us ignoramuses must simply be quiet and obey.

What will be altered—an outcome devoutly to be wished—is what this nation has become under the last 80 years of pressures and outright rule of the Democratic Party and of late the Progressive-Democratic Party: a rapidly growing regulatory state with weakened national security, and a nation damaged domestically by Party’s explosively growing national debt, its racist and sexist affirmative action programs, its gilded welfare cage, and lately its revived segregationist policy of identity politics.

There have been excursions from that trend, to be sure, but they have been only occasional and brief: one party’s successful effort to defeat the Soviet Union via its rapid defense buildup and its current, nascent restart toward rebuilding our nation’s defense establishment, together with the beginnings of a rollback of Party’s imposed regulations governing what Party would permit or require each of us to do.

This is a battle we cannot afford to lose.

Anybody Else

Posted on by
Reply

Ex-Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton thinks President Donald Trump should have been—would have been—indicted on the basis of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation were he not President.

I think there’s enough there that any other person who had engaged in those acts would certainly have been indicted[.]

On the other hand, given the case that then-FBI Director James Comey laid out regarding Clinton’s mishandling of classified documents via her private, uncontrolled, and unprotected email server; her forwarding classified material via her unsecured emails; and her destruction of 30,000 pieces of evidence emails, she should have been indicted.

But then that was Comey, and that was Comey’s then-boss, ex-Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s (D) secretive meeting with Clinton’s husband, ex-President Bill Clinton (D) on the latter’s airplane.

Anybody else who had engaged in those acts, or been fronted for in that way, would certainly have gone to trial.